Microsoft: We Lost Our Way With Recent Halo Games

[Atmos Duality]

I actually liked ODST's presentation between the mood, awesome music, themes/levels, and missions...hell, I actually found Halo to be kind of good for the first time ever.

But the point is: Microsoft thinks that taking their universe in a different direction is a bad thing. Master Chief remains inexplicably popular due to...I dunno his shitty one-liners and deep voice?
Therefore: Microsoft decrees that all future Halo titles must feature him; lest we risk this series ever budging a fucking inch from its source material.

 

[maturin]

Get real. Master Chief is a useless non-person.

As is Gordon Freeman, a quite lauded 'proagonist'. Hell, Master Chief at least has a couple of lines, a backstory contained within books and a support character with whom he has a pre-existing relationship that's quite complex. And he has a reason (being a super-soldier in strength-enhancing power armor) to be proficient with lots and lots of weapons and being superhumanly endurant; Gordon Freeman is a MIT-educated black mesa researcher.

Just saiyan.

As always, Valve's use (or modern reuse) of the silent protagonist is misunderstood. There's been too much ink spilled on this point already to go over it now, but there is a world of difference between Freeman and a floating camera clothed in faceless cliche that travels between consciously epic cutscenes with your typical Hollywood-inspired sloppy videogame storytelling.

 

[Neverhoodian]

"We kind of lost our way [with ODST and Reach] a little bit, I'll say," he admitted. "And that's why I wanted to make sure that at the unveiling of Halo 4, you knew you were playing Master Chief, that John was back. Because Master Chief is the John Wayne character of that universe, and that's who you want to play."

Master Chief's character might have been fleshed out more in the books, but to most gamers he is not a "John Wayne" character (hell, he doesn't fit that description even if you did read the books). He's in fact a "Gordon Freeman" character: a blank slate that the player can project their own personality onto.

To be perfectly honest, ODST and Reach rank with the first one for me as some of my favorite Halo games, partly because you don't play as the Chief. I felt the ending of Halo 3 was a good send-off for John, having "finished the fight" and all (except now it turns out he's only halfway finished it). By dropping the Chief's story and focusing on other battles, ODST and Reach really helped flesh out the Halo universe. I think there are still lots of opportunities to be explored here without going back to the same tired formula with the Chief (squad-based tactical shooter with pre-shield technology SPARTAN-IIs, stealth-oriented game as an Elite Spec-ops, extending the space segment from Reach into a full space combat game, a Mass-Effect style game where you're an ONI operative, etc.)

Long story short: people didn't fall in love with the Chief, they fell in love with the setting.

 

[DaxStrife]

I'm not a Halo fan in the slightest (beyond Red vs Blue), but I actually wanted to play Halo: ODST for a while just because it looked like they put an emphasis on character and story (and having a third of the cast from "Firefly" helped a lot). Of course, I didn't buy it because I heard how effing short the single-player was for a full-price game (multiplayer can eat a dick), and now hearing that Microsoft thinks those games were failures because they didn't have Master Chef makes me even less optimistic about this franchise.

 

[internetzealot1]

ODST had the best protagonist of any Halo game.

 

[Korten12]

Like I said to BlindChance, Master Chief isn't dull, if you read the Halo: Fall of Reach book, most likely you wouldn't say that.

Any piece of media should be able to stand up on it's own without supporting material.

The fact he was better fleshed out in the books means nothing to me. If they can't do that in the game, I'm not gonna care what becomes of him in the game.

And on topic, ODST and Reach were probably my favourite Halo games. So... yeah, I'm inclined to refute that theory of his.

But then look at it like this: Let's say they wanted to flesh them out more in game. Well Halo shows most of its story (not all) through cutscenes. So that would mean they probably would have needed to make cutscenes longer and then people would complain about the length of cutscenes.

The books are NEEDED, you can't show everything in games. In Fall of Reach, there were many times that there would be no combat and just talking. They can't show that in game without people like I said complaining about length of cutscenes or would complain about lack of action.

 

[cainx10a]

Bah, Reach will always be my favorite Halo. No flood = Great Experience

This!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Also, I liked Noble Six more than Master Chief....*Puts up flame shield*

*Activate Bubble Shield* 2 defense systems > 1 defense system!!!

 

[cthulhumythos]

RANT RANT RANT RANT RANT WARNING WARNING RANT INBOUND


well, i disagree. because master chief is not halo. he is a character. halo is a universe. master chief is an icon microsoft wants to use to make a quick buck. 3 times.

i'm a little pissed right now; i try to say halo is more than what some people say, and this guy comes around saying that it's about the marvelous character of master chief. it's not about the vast foundation of the halo universe that bungie made; it's that one guy who you played as three times.

they're cashing in on nostalgia.

and here i was hoping duke nukem forever taught a lesson. (well, it taught several, but i'm saying cashing in on nostalgia is a stupid idea)

i am flustered, because this guy is saying that halo is no more than a nearly blank slate who says a few things in a bad-ass voice. there's so much cool stuff to focus on, but no. instead of broadening the picture to the fans who don't read the books, lets go focus on what chiefs doing. even though we already beat the main universe threatening bad-guys. but hey, we can't make money off a wrapped up story, lets fuck everything up!

it feels like a tv show. once one arc gets resolved another pops up immediately to take it's place

i wish microsoft didn't have an instinctive need to run this series into the ground after ending on a high note. but now i'm forced to begrudgingly agree with all the halo haters who i've scoffed at in the past. great

so i'm going to cut myself short before make even more anger filled words which i might regret.

 

[twaddle]

sorry microsoft but you are wrong. Bungie had the right idea with
ODST. the games were solid, and although the characters were stereotypes the story surrounding them was good. yes the ai should have reflected the characters personality more but the script was solid and it was better than the subtle conveying of thoughts and emotions that seemed heavy handed at times forced.

 

[lumenadducere]

I found it far, far more interesting to play a doomed Spartan fighting a doomed battle on a doomed world than playing an invincible hero that speaks maybe ten words during the entire campaign and is as developed as an amoeba. Yes, yes, he has character in the books, blah blah blah. The games show very little of that.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the first few games, but Reach was by far the best game in the series. To say that it was the "wrong direction" is to completely miss what made that game great.

 

[Geo Da Sponge]

Things that would be interesting to explore with a full game in the Halo universe:

- Covenant society (given the number of civil wars they appear to have)
- The human insurrection
- The war between the Forerunners and the Flood

Fuck it, let's do another game about the Master Chief! Although to be honest I'm rather curious about what he's going to be fighting.

 

[EightGaugeHippo]

Reach was better than 3 in my opinion... Chief is bland and undeveloped as a character as far as he is portrayed in the games.

Noble 6 was even less developed, but at least there where other spartan characters in Reach.
Each one much more likable than the chief.

 

[Tsaba]

totally disagree with this guy, by not playing master chief, they took a step in the right direction, it opened up a whole new world for them/and us the player to make/play a game and expand/experience a massive universe.

 

[harvz]

uh...was he drunk? high? combination of the 2?
halo 3 was horrid, among most people that i know who play halo, they will say that (campaign wise) ODST and Reach are the best and i would have to agree.

 

[razer17]

This really just smacks of "Oh God, Bungie have GONE! Let's deride the last few games and stoke the fanboys in preparation for the next one!"

Reach is easily the best Halo game. I actually enjoyed that game, unlike the others (well, to be fair, I like playing the first, but only in co-op)

 

[Jabberwock King]

The human-covenant war of the Halo series is a conflict that spans 28 years. So far, the games have only shown 2 of those years (also that other time in Halo Wars, but that's not the point). Their is plenty of room for more protagonist in Halo, and that doesn't even touch upon the KotOR-like options that the series has considering the existence of the Forerunner era before firing the halo array. I really liked the idea of playing as the Arbiter in Halo 2, as it gave you the ability to be closer to the antagonists and understand what they were, even if it merely confirmed that the prophets were douchebags.

I do want to see how the Chief's story will end, whether by returning to civilization with other lost soldiers or by ensuring their safe return through his own glorious death (I think it's a safe bet that either of those Will happen), but if simply "being" Master Chief is this CEO's idea of what a Halo game is, then I can't help but see him as dragging this down.

 

[Trishbot]

Meh.

ODST and Reach are my two favorite Halo games. I wasn't a fan of Master Chief, but I felt very close to the ODSTs and Noble Team, as well as my ability to project myself into Noble 6 better (as a girl, I like to play as a girl, if they let me... Master Chief is all butch dude...)

Master Chief did NOT make Halo great. Good gameplay made Halo great. That's like saying "every Final Fantasy needs Cloud as the hero to be good" or that "ever Zelda game HAS to have Ganondorf".

Nope; Halo was doing just fine without the Chief.

 

[The Lost Big Boss]

No, you had more interesting games with ODST and Reach because of the lack of John. In the first three games John was a blank slate, but with no one else to pick up real characterization. Reach had a blank slate, but with everyone else picking up the slack, even if it was cliched.

Also, did they completely retcon the events at reach for Halo: Reach? I don't remember the invasion of reach spanning weeks in the original book.

 

[r_Chance]

i actually dont want to play as a master cheff, he's boring bland and unintresting, i would rather play a non-charackter like noble 6 or gordon freeman then a boring bland space marine.

I'm just looking over the posts and what occurs to me is that the Master Chief is what you put into him so to speak. If you invested yourself in him, felt immersed, then he's an important character. If not, then he's not and it was just a game.

My 2 cp. Well, cents. This isn't an FRPG